Pebble Mine: Evaluating Environmental Degradation Against Natural Resource Demand
Deep in the wilderness of backwoods Southwest Alaska quietly lies one of the most controversial environmental issues of the past decade. This region of Alaska is the proposed home of the Pebble Mine project. At first glance, Pebble Mine appears as a standard hypothetical mining development, but in reality, it is one of the most polarizing mining proposals in history due to its potential economic and environmental implications. Pebble Mine is the second-largest copper-gold reserve in the entire world, with billions of dollars’ worth of untapped valuable natural resources. However, the proposed location of Pebble Mine is Bristol Bay, which is home to hundreds of important species and is North America’s most productive salmon fishery.
The Pebble Mine debate is significant because it magnifies the complicated truths of mineral mining. As a society, we need natural resources for every facet of life, but mining these natural resources causes severe environmental degradation. For any sustainable mining operation, the benefits of extracting natural resources must greatly outweigh environmental risks, and the mining operation must limit environmental degradation.
As previously mentioned, Pebble Mine has a nearly unmatched amount of copper and gold, along with large reserves of the rare metal molybdenum. The total natural resources are listed below.
· 51.7 billion to 73.7 billion pounds of copper, worth up to $280 billion.
· 66.1 million to 87 million ounces of gold, worth up to $82 billion.
· 2.6 billion to 4.2 billion pounds of molybdenum, worth up to $139 billion.
Copper and molybdenum are especially significant because of their vital importance to renewable energy systems. The unfortunate reality of clean power units such as solar panels and wind turbines, is that they require large amounts of metals that need to be mined. For example, an average wind turbine (3 MW) needs roughly 10,000 pounds (4.7 tons) of copper. The copper from Pebble Mine alone can help build over 7 million wind turbines. To put that into perspective, it would take only 1.1 million average wind turbines (3 MW) running at a 40% capacity factor to generate the 11,500 TWh needed to power the entire United States. Molybdenum is a rare earth metal that is one of the most important elements for building photovoltaic cells, which power solar panels. Molybdenum is also a small but necessary component of wind turbines as well. While mining has some detrimental negative effects, extracting natural resources is a key part of a renewable energy future.
Pebble Mine has the potential to provide the natural resources the United States needs to fully transition from fossil fuel to renewable energy. However, the location of Pebble Mine presents many complications. The mine would be located right on Bristol Bay, one of the most important ecosystems in North America. Bristol Bay is home to dozens of fish and mammal species and almost 200 bird species. More importantly, it is home to the world’s most valuable salmon fishery. Bristol Bay alone supplies 40% of the world’s sockeye salmon and the sockeye salmon of Bristol Bay yield more value than the combined total value of all fish harvests from 41 states. Summarized in one number, the Bristol Bay salmon industry creates 1.5 billion dollars of sales value to the United States each year. Additionally, the salmon industry provides thousands of jobs to local Alaskan residents, many of whom are indigenous Native Alaskans that rely on subsistence hunting of salmon and other Bristol Bay animals for survival. Overall, Bristol Bay has crucial environmental, economic, and cultural significance to Alaska, and improper mining can gravely threaten the entire Southwest Alaska region.
Analysis: The Pebble Mine Should NOT be Built.
If Pebble Mine were to be commissioned, it would utterly destroy the entire Bristol Bay ecosystem. The copper and gold in Pebble Mine are designated as very low grade, which means the minerals are only a small percentage of the rock. Due to the low grade minerals, the mine would have to be an open pit mine. Open pit mines are way more detrimental then the alternative of subsurface mining, because open pit mining involves digging a gigantic hole into the earth. Pebble Mine would cost billions of dollars to construct and additional millions in maintenance over the years. These extremely high costs drastically lower the profitability of the potential mined resources. On top of the high costs, the U.S EPA’s scientific study determined that the construction of an open pit Pebble Mine will destroy “24 to 94 miles of salmon streams and between 1,300 to 5,350 acres of wetlands, lakes, and ponds”. This would effectively devastate the Alaskan salmon industry and endanger hundreds of already threatened Arctic wildlife species.
While it is true that the world needs mined resources such as copper and gold, the environmental consequences of the Pebble Mine outweigh any possible economic gains. Mining the natural resources of Bristol Bay is not worth the risk of completely eradicating an entire ecosystem. There are plenty of other mines and mineral recycling programs that can supply the necessary copper and rare earth metals needed to build renewable energy systems. Bristol Bay is one of the world’s most important ecosystems for Arctic biodiversity conservation, global fish supply, and the region also has immense cultural significance to a large Indigenous Alaska Native tribe population who live there.
Mining is inevitable, but to maximize the benefits of mining natural resources, mines have to be environmentally friendly. This would require a mine to be constructed as a subsurface mine that removes little habitat and minimizes waste, or constructed as a small open pit mine with an extremely comprehensive remediation plan. As an open pit mine with few official remediation plans, Pebble Mine cannot be considered sustainable. The Pebble Mine proposal blatantly fails to consider costly economic externalities and the proposal also disregards the detrimental environmental impacts Pebble Mine would have on a crucial global ecosystem.
The Battle Is Not Over Yet, and You Can Help.
In May of 2020, the U.S EPA under the Trump Administration, decided not to formally object to the Pebble Mine, leaving the decision up to the U.S Army Corps of Engineers to decide if Pebble Mine should be built. This comes one year after an Obama Administration EPA restriction blocking Pebble Mine due to environmental concerns was lifted by the Trump Administration EPA.
This summer, the Army Corps of Engineers will decide to either grant or block the permit allowing the Pebble Mine to be constructed.
There is an extremely dedicated group of local Alaskans, fisherman, conservationists, and Native Americans who have been fighting this permit for years. Below is a list of websites which detail how you can get involved to help save Bristol Bay.
http://www.savebristolbay.org (highly recommend)
https://alaskaconservation.org/2019/07/protect-bristol-bay-from-pebble-mine/
https://www.nrdc.org/stop-pebble-mine-save-bristol-bay
UPDATE 11/26/20 - The U.S Army Corps of Engineers officially denied the permit to construct Pebble Mine in Bristol Bay!
After months of deliberation, the U.S Army Corps of Engineers reviewed the scientific findings and determined that the proposed open-pit mine “does not comply with Clean Water Act guidelines” and “is contrary to the public interest”. This is a significant environmental victory and provides rare good news for the United States’ natural resources, which have been consistently under attack by the Trump Administration.
In the end, scientific evidence prevailed, and Bristol Bay’s pristine ecosystem can continue to thrive without the Pebble Mine project threatening the sanctity of the region.
Bibliography
Adragna, Anthony, and Annie Snider. “Trump Administration Rejects Massive Alaska Mining Project.” POLITICO, POLITICO, 26 Nov. 2020, www.politico.com/news/2020/11/25/trump-administration-alaska-mining-project-440626.
Barnard, Michael. “How Many Wind Turbines Would It Take To Power The US?” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 18 Dec. 2019, www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2019/12/18/how-many-wind-turbines-would-it-take-to-power-the-us/#17b1a4bb1d96.
Bluemink, Elizabeth. “Pebble's Value Keeps Growing.” Anchorage Daily News, Anchorage Daily News, 30 Sept. 2016, www.adn.com/alaska-news/article/pebbles-value-keeps-growing/2008/02/26/.
“THE ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF THE BRISTOL BAY SALMON INDUSTRY.” Http://Fishermenforbristolbay.org, 2010, fishermenforbristolbay.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/ISER_Bristol-Bay_exec_20130513-2.pdf.
Eilperin, Juliet, and Brady Dennis. “EPA Opts Not to Delay Controversial Alaska Pebble Mine for Now.” The Seattle Times, The Seattle Times Company, 29 May 2020, www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/epa-opts-not-to-delay-controversial-alaska-pebble-mine-for-now/.
U.S. EPA. An Assessment of Potential Mining Impacts on Salmon Ecosystems of Bristol Bay, Alaska (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/910/R-14/001, 2014.
“Why Is Bristol Bay Important for Salmon? And Seven Other Bristol Bay Facts.” WWF, World Wildlife Fund, www.worldwildlife.org/stories/why-is-bristol-bay-important-for-salmon-and-seven-other-bristol-bay-facts.
“Wind Power Needs American Metals & Minerals.” Wind-Watch, Northwest Mining Association, docs.wind-watch.org/Wind-Power-Metals-Minerals.pdf.
